3 ms·

By the same token, why should the Constitution of the United States of America matter, give that was 231 years ago? I think you will find that there are many o

By the same token, why should the Constitution of the United States of America matter, give that was 231 years ago? I think you will find that there are many of us that are quite dismayed at the state of things here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_addres...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gruez 6y ago
> By the same token, why should the Constitution of the United States of America matter, give that was 231 years ago? because in the case of the new york post, the only thing that remained after 230 years is the branding. The writers, editors, and general "culture" at the newspaper has completely changed. On the other hand, the constitution has remained static. Nothing has changed. We can argue whether this is a bad thing or a good thing, but it's fundamentally incomparable to what happened to the new york post.
- maxharris 6y ago
  > On the other hand, the constitution has remained static The citizens and institutions and general "culture" of the United States of America has also completely changed since 1789.
  - bogomipz 6y ago
    Your original comparison was a newspaper to the constitution. The constitution has in fact changed very little. There have only been 17 changes(amendments) to it since 1791. 17 changes in 229 years is pretty static and add to that any change requires that 2/3s of the states to approve. Also no New Yorker thinks the Post is a serious newspaper. Its most well known features are bad and tasteless puns cover headlines and a gossip page called "Page Six" which itself is not even on the 6th page of the paper.
- dylan604 6y ago
  >the constitution has remained static. Nothing has changed. I believe the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments would disagree with you. That's supposed to be the beauty of the US Constitution is that it was designed to be able to be updated.
  - gruez 6y ago
    The difference here is that the older parts of the constitution have a very big impact on our lives today, and they're constantly being discussed/argued over. On the other hand, all the discourse around the new york post is about articles published recently. Accordingly, if a constitutional amendment was passed today, the amount of reverence towards it would be non-existent.
dpflan 6y ago
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.“
whymauri 6y ago
I'm not an originalist, but the reason is that the Constitution is meant to be a precedent-setting document with legal implications. The Post is no such thing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gruez 6y ago

> By the same token, why should the Constitution of the United States of America matter, give that was 231 years ago? because in the case of the new york post, the only thing that remained after 230 years is the branding. The writers, editors, and general "culture" at the newspaper has completely changed. On the other hand, the constitution has remained static. Nothing has changed. We can argue whether this is a bad thing or a good thing, but it's fundamentally incomparable to what happened to the new york post.

maxharris 6y ago
> On the other hand, the constitution has remained static The citizens and institutions and general "culture" of the United States of America has also completely changed since 1789.
- bogomipz 6y ago
  Your original comparison was a newspaper to the constitution. The constitution has in fact changed very little. There have only been 17 changes(amendments) to it since 1791. 17 changes in 229 years is pretty static and add to that any change requires that 2/3s of the states to approve. Also no New Yorker thinks the Post is a serious newspaper. Its most well known features are bad and tasteless puns cover headlines and a gossip page called "Page Six" which itself is not even on the 6th page of the paper.
dylan604 6y ago
>the constitution has remained static. Nothing has changed. I believe the Bill of Rights and the rest of the amendments would disagree with you. That's supposed to be the beauty of the US Constitution is that it was designed to be able to be updated.
- gruez 6y ago
  The difference here is that the older parts of the constitution have a very big impact on our lives today, and they're constantly being discussed/argued over. On the other hand, all the discourse around the new york post is about articles published recently. Accordingly, if a constitutional amendment was passed today, the amount of reverence towards it would be non-existent.

dpflan 6y ago

“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.“

whymauri 6y ago

I'm not an originalist, but the reason is that the Constitution is meant to be a precedent-setting document with legal implications. The Post is no such thing.